What do you mean, I don't get it.
The aliens are truth?
General Jesus Christ grave is in India
- Thread starter touch
- Start date
The aliens are truth?
I'm with you
@MountainMedic
Only difference is I spent my entire life with my face on my ground praying.
If this world is going to change it takes forward movement, not thoughts and prayers.
I see no difference between politics & religion, the 2 things to steer clear of at the bar.
They are different aspects of the same thing.
I think greater beings designed us in their image, just as "we" are doing
with new technology.
Like Promethius.
Different colors, languages, blood types, brains, for specific tasks.
And as a "fingerprint" of a specific designer.
@MountainMedic Only difference is I spent my entire life with my face on my ground praying.
If this world is going to change it takes forward movement, not thoughts and prayers.
I see no difference between politics & religion, the 2 things to steer clear of at the bar.
They are different aspects of the same thing.
I think greater beings designed us in their image, just as "we" are doing
with new technology.
Like Promethius.
Different colors, languages, blood types, brains, for specific tasks.
And as a "fingerprint" of a specific designer.
I personally will never forget the war of 12/2/2024
There's a lot here I agree with, so I'll try to address a few points.
First - "That conclusion is predicated upon my disdain for anyone in power telling me that the only route to truth/salvation lies through ";hem'".
You have no idea how much I resonate with this statement. It's also why, while I believe in God (though I don't know what all I do or don't believe), try to have a relationship with Him, talk to Him daily, etc, I absolutely loathe organized religion & have unending utter disdain for it.
(I know you're not conflating the two...I'm just saying in general.)
To me, organized religion - of *all* types - has been primarily a tool of men to accumulate money, corruption, power, and control over other men. And convincing the masses you'll only have salvation if you follow their rules is a phenomenal way of doing it.
Next - "What I generally see from believers is a score keeping situation. How many good works can you put on your resume, how many have you convinced to join the flock. How does this guys score measure against another guys score."
This is something I've thought a lot about. It's actually something I saw Alex Hormozi expound on once in a podcast, as to the main reason he went from being Christian to being atheist (or agnostic...not sure which...he'll freely admit he's more or less nihilist in that he thinks *none* of it matters in the end, so just do what you want, though he'd likely argue in favor of helping others).
His point (and I'm paraphrasing) was if it *is* a score-keeping situation of sorts, then there *has* to be a "middle line". If so, where is it and what determines it?
i.e. - had you just held open one more door, said one more Lord's prayer, done one more good deed, etc, what woulda taken you over that middle line from "good" person (heaven) to "bad" person (hell)?
(I won't get into many of the other rules and what exceptions can / should be made...such as a 10-year old child who was born into an atheistic household, told his entire life there is no God, etc, so he'd have no reason to seek out God, ask Jesus to come into his heart, etc, but by all other accounts, is a kind, peaceful, good person, then dies in a car wreck. Is that kid gonna expelled down to hell when really, it's not even his fault?)
Lastly - "Right vs Wrong is a construct that we created in an attempt to regulate each other. I'm OK with it and I don't think creating a mythology around it helps clear anything up."
If there's anything I've learned in my life, it's that the *vast* majority of things in the world aren't "good" or "bad"...they just "are". You make them "good" or "bad" based on your (ultimately, chosen) perspective or point of view.
Does this apply in extreme situations? I don't think so. I mean, there's no reason to justify taking a hammer to a puppy or some barbaric thing like that. That's definitely "bad".
But in most situations, "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad" is often just a matter of perspective and chances are, you can find someone that believes just as vehemently as you do...in the other direction.
Also, for anyone that wants to possibly give me an answer... lol
Something I will always have an issue reconciling is how people say they "know" that the Bible is the true "word of God", it contains the books He "wanted", etc.
How do we know that?
I mean, by and large, we don't trust politicians - of any sort. Yet it was a group of damn politicians that decided what books went into the Bible. lol
That aside, they are the ones that decided what books were included...so how do we know they got it right? Because they were just men, right? And are we not incessantly told that men perpetually fuck up (hence the need for forgiveness in the first place)?
I have asked several religious people, preachers, theology students, etc this question and can't get a straight answer - usually it's a word salad of mumbo jumbo that isn't a simple explanation.
The closest I've received is that they were led by "divine inspiration"...meaning God "inspired" them to choose the books He wanted.
I dunno about you, but a lot of things "inspire" me. That doesn't mean I always take action. It also doesn't mean I always get it right.
So how do we know that even with "divine inspiration", they still didn't succumb to [insert whatever here], thus making an "incorrect" choice?
And if you say that "divine inspiration" means God made sure, molded reality, whatever you wanna cali it such that they *did* choose the right books...does that not negate the idea of "free will"? Because isn't "free will" one of the cornerstones of Christianity? That God created us with free will and wants us to choose to worship Him?
Free will, at least in my mind, has to be an all-or-nothing thing - either everyone has it all the time, or it's bullshit. Can be a "yeah, everyone has free will...except in special circumstances".
If anyone can provide a simplistic answer, I'm all ears.
Something I will always have an issue reconciling is how people say they "know" that the Bible is the true "word of God", it contains the books He "wanted", etc.
How do we know that?
I mean, by and large, we don't trust politicians - of any sort. Yet it was a group of damn politicians that decided what books went into the Bible. lol
That aside, they are the ones that decided what books were included...so how do we know they got it right? Because they were just men, right? And are we not incessantly told that men perpetually fuck up (hence the need for forgiveness in the first place)?
I have asked several religious people, preachers, theology students, etc this question and can't get a straight answer - usually it's a word salad of mumbo jumbo that isn't a simple explanation.
The closest I've received is that they were led by "divine inspiration"...meaning God "inspired" them to choose the books He wanted.
I dunno about you, but a lot of things "inspire" me. That doesn't mean I always take action. It also doesn't mean I always get it right.
So how do we know that even with "divine inspiration", they still didn't succumb to [insert whatever here], thus making an "incorrect" choice?
And if you say that "divine inspiration" means God made sure, molded reality, whatever you wanna cali it such that they *did* choose the right books...does that not negate the idea of "free will"? Because isn't "free will" one of the cornerstones of Christianity? That God created us with free will and wants us to choose to worship Him?
Free will, at least in my mind, has to be an all-or-nothing thing - either everyone has it all the time, or it's bullshit. Can be a "yeah, everyone has free will...except in special circumstances".
If anyone can provide a simplistic answer, I'm all ears.
lol, no you don't have to, just reading through the posts I was thinking that Helwig would be all up in this conversation then realized I hadn't seen him post on the OG in years, just hoping he was okay.
Last edited:
lol I hear you. Yeah, I assume he is. I don't talk to him much or really see him post - he'll just comment on something I post every once in a blue moon.
In the strawman of the 10 year old who never knew of God I think that child is safe. I've never read anything within the Bible that leads me to believe God punished those who lack genuine constructive knowledge. It's the rejection of knowledge gained that creates the issue. Given most people would feel sympathy for this child it's natural to me at least that we think this way because our Creator thinks this way.
Above this it's better to first get yourself in order before you what if yourself into a puddle of confusion and misplaced anxiety and anger over hypotheticals.
Above this it's better to first get yourself in order before you what if yourself into a puddle of confusion and misplaced anxiety and anger over hypotheticals.
Why the condescending response?
I'm legit asking, and I'm legit asking because everything I've mentioned are either things I've been told by religious people, theists, etc, or questions I've genuinely had, not gotten answers to (or if I did, were convoluted as hell).
So feel free to call it a strawman all you want, but I'm merely repeating things other theists have told me that didn't make sense.
(Not to mention all the other points I made & asked.)
Also, why the assumptions? You mention "misplaced anxiety and anger". Who says I am anxious or angry? I have questions and don't know / have the answers to them. "Puddle of confusion"? Maybe.
But to say "get yourself in order" is about as dogmatic and vague (again, if not seemingly condescending) response as one gets...as isn't asking genuine questions a way of trying to get oneself "in order"?
This is another reason religion, as well as so many (most) religious people, turn me and so many others off.
They could be. The truth is already established. We're just trying to catch up.
Probably just an issue with tone not being reflected in typed words. Maybe poor choices of words at that. Idk. But it is a strawman. That style of argument has a definition of which fits your example.